Employment Law Alert UK – March 2026

Employment Rights Act 2025

First changes to trade union law come into force. From 18 February 2026, several significant changes to trade union law under the Employment Rights Act 2025 came into force. The requirements for the content of union notices and ballot papers relating to industrial action have been simplified, making the process less administratively burdensome. The previous rule that industrial action ballots in certain key public services required at least 40% of those eligible to vote in favour has been abolished. The minimum notice period that unions must give employers before commencing industrial action has been shortened from 14 days to 10 days. For ballots opened on or after 18 February 2026, the period during which industrial action can lawfully take place has been extended to 12 months, though this period cannot be further extended. The obligation for unions to supervise picketing has been removed. Additionally, legal protection from dismissal for participating in official, lawful industrial action now covers the entire duration of the action, rather than being limited to a 12-week period. These reforms collectively aim to simplify procedures and enhance protections for union members involved in industrial action.

The Government continues to publish a steady stream of consultations. In February the government published the following consultations in relation to changes brought about by the Employment Rights Act 2025:

• Fire and rehire - changes to expenses, benefits and shift patterns. The consultation closes on 1 April 2026.

  • The government seeks views on whether any changes to expenses and benefits should be restricted or whether an exception should be made for certain types (i.e. share schemes, travel expenses and accommodation). Similarly in relation to shift patterns the government is considering whether there will be no protection for employees for changes of shift patterns or whether a narrow group of changes should be excluded (i.e. changes from day to night working or weekday to weekend working).

• Protection from detriments for taking industrial action. The consultation closes on 23 April 2026.

  • The consultation relates to the new right not to be subject to a detriment "of a prescribed description" for taking part in industrial action. It considers whether all detriments should be prohibited (the government's preferred option) or whether there should be a list of prohibited detriments. The change is expected to be implemented in October 2026.

• Consultation on improving access to flexible working arrangements. The consultation closes on 30 April 2026.

  • The ERA 2025 introduces a new reasonableness test for flexible working requests. This consultation focuses on a proposed new process for employers to follow.

• Modernising the agency work regulatory framework. The consultation closes on 1 May 2026.

  • The consultation considers how regulation of the temporary labour market should address umbrella companies. It considers security and transparency, increased choice for workers and current working practices.

• Threshold for triggering collective redundancy obligations. The consultation closes on 21 May 2026

  • The consultation concerns proposals for a new organisation-wide trigger for collective redundancy consultation. The government is considering thresholds based on a fixed number for organisation-wide redundancies, a tiered approach based on the total number of employees, percentage based options or a mixture of approaches. 

ACAS survey predicts most significant changes for employers and employees from ERA 2025. A recent ACAS-commissioned YouGov survey has revealed what employers and employees perceive to be the most significant changes brought about by the Employment Rights Act 2025. The reform to statutory sick pay came out on top, with 43% of employers and 36% of workers identifying the move to sick pay from the first day of illness as having the biggest workplace impact. The second most impactful change identified by the survey was the reduction of the qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection from two years to six months, selected by 31% of employers and 30% of employees. Employers ranked the new right to paternity leave from the first day of employment as their third most important reform (28%), while employees highlighted the new flexible working arrangements (28%).

DEI

High Court dismisses challenge to EHRC guidance on single-sex facilities following Supreme Court ruling. The High Court held that the EHRC acted lawfully in publishing guidance reflecting the Supreme Court's interpretation of "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 as "biological sex", and dismissed the application for judicial review. The Claimants, including the Good Law Project Limited and three anonymised individuals, challenged the legality of EHRC guidance issued in response to the Supreme Court's decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers, which clarified that "woman" and "man" in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex. The guidance, published in April and revised in June 2025, addressed the practical implications for single-sex facilities in workplaces and public services, and was subsequently removed from the EHRC website in October 2025. The Claimants argued the guidance was legally incorrect, breached EHRC's statutory duties, and was incompatible with Convention rights. The High Court found that the EHRC's guidance accurately reflected the law as established by the Supreme Court, particularly regarding the provision and use of single-sex facilities, and the application of the Equality Act 2010 and Workplace Regulations. (R (on the application of Good Law Project Ltd and ors) v Commission for Equality and Human Rights)

EAT partially upholds appeal in religious belief discrimination claim. The EAT has held that the ET erred in its analysis of certain complaints of direct discrimination based on religious belief, failing to identify in relation to each action, why the Respondent did what it did. The appeal was otherwise dismissed. The Claimant, a Christian, applied for a mental health support worker role at the Respondent, a charity with a strong commitment to supporting the LGBTQI+ community. After initial success in the recruitment process, concerns arose when the Respondent discovered the Claimant's previous legal dispute with Sheffield University, which involved his public expression that homosexuality is a sin. The Respondent withdrew the Claimant's job offer, citing misalignment with its values and concerns about the Claimant's ability to support LGBTQI+ service users. The Claimant brought claims of direct and indirect discrimination and harassment based on his religious beliefs. The EAT held that the ET failed to separately analyse whether the Respondent's actions were motivated by an objection to the Claimant's beliefs themselves (which cannot be justified) or to the manner of their expression (which may be justified if proportionate). The ET had conflated concerns about the risk of service users discovering the Claimant's views online with concerns about his ability to fulfil the role and comply with organisational policies. The EAT remitted the case to the ET to reconsider, now with the assistance of the Court of Appeal decision in Higgs. The case emphasises the need for employers to clearly identify and articulate concerns and to explore less intrusive steps before withdrawing job offers. (Ngole v Touchstone Leeds)

Employee relations

High Court dismisses application for injunctive relief in team move dispute. The High Court has held that while there were breaches of duty by two senior employees and some unlawful acts, these relatively limited breaches did not give rise to a continuing need for injunctive relief in circumstances where the majority of the resignations which followed would have occurred in any event. The claim was brought after 22 employees from Guy Carpenter's Global Specialties business resigned in June and July 2025 to join Willis Re, a new reinsurance broker. Guy Carpenter alleged an unlawful team poaching operation orchestrated by Willis Re with the assistance of two former Guy Carpenter managers, aiming to divert clients and business. The Defendants admitted some breaches (notably the sharing of remuneration information and contact details), but argued that most resignations were due to dissatisfaction at Guy Carpenter and attractive offers from Willis Re, not unlawful conduct. Despite a series of minor breaches the High Court was greatly influenced by the fact that most of the resignations would have happened lawfully in any event, given dissatisfaction at Guy Carpenter, and the pull of Willis Re's offers, even if over a slightly extended period of time. The unlawful conduct provided only a limited "head start" advantage (four months), which had already long expired by the time of judgment. As a result, the Court refused to grant the springboard relief sought and noted that Guy Carpenter remains protected by PTRs and garden leave provisions which have not yet expired. The judgment emphasises the need for Claimants to prove a continuing unlawful advantage to justify springboard relief, and that lawful competition-even in the context of team moves-remains permissible. (Guy Carpenter v Willis Re)

EAT finds dismissal unfair due to defective internal appeal process. The EAT has held that the Respondent unfairly dismissed the Claimant, given the severity of the defects with the internal appeal process. The Claimant, a heavy goods vehicle driver, was dismissed by the Respondent for medical incapability after more than two years' absence due to vertigo and vestibular migraines. Although the initial dismissal process was found to be reasonable, the internal appeal against dismissal was marred by significant procedural failings: the nominated appeal manager declined to hear the appeal, his replacement was unavailable for the rescheduled hearing, and the HR business partner placed the onus on the Claimant to choose the appeal manager and propose dates, without written confirmation. Ultimately the appeal never took place. The EAT found that the ET erred in law by not properly considering the impact of the defective appeal process. The EAT emphasised that a procedurally defective appeal can render a dismissal unfair, and the more striking the defects, the greater the need for the ET to explain why the dismissal was nonetheless fair. In this case, the appeal process was so flawed that the only proper conclusion was unfair dismissal. The EAT substituted a finding of unfair dismissal. (Milrine v DHL Services Ltd)

Litigation procedure

Interim report on use of AI for preparing court documents. The Civil Justice Council has published an interim report and consultation on the use of AI for preparing court documents. The report explores whether new rules are needed to regulate the use of AI by legal representatives in the preparation of court documents. The report highlights both the opportunities and risks associated with AI, including concerns about accuracy, professional responsibility, and the potential for AI-generated errors or "hallucinations." The report also reviews international approaches, discusses the distinction between administrative and substantive uses of AI, and seeks consultation on whether guidance or formal rules are preferable. The consultation aims to balance the benefits of AI in improving efficiency and access to justice with the need to maintain public confidence and uphold professional and ethical standards in the legal system.

New tribunal centre opens in London. A new, purpose-built tribunal centre-the largest of its kind in the UK-has opened in central London, aiming to improve the speed and efficiency of tribunal hearings across England and Wales. The facility, which features 30 hearing rooms, 40 chambers for judges, and space for up to 60 judicial officers, is part of a £148.5 million government initiative to upgrade and modernise tribunal infrastructure. The centre is designed to be accessible and environmentally friendly, with adaptable spaces to accommodate a variety of case types. The first hearings, focusing on employment disputes, are scheduled for early March and are intended to help reduce the current backlog of over 66,000 cases.

Court of Appeal reduces sentence of employee in contempt of court, but maintains that custodial sentence was appropriate. The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal against a sentence for contempt of court and reduced the sentence from 20 months to 8 months imprisonment. The Claimant commenced employment with Commerzbank on 1 May 2019. On 21 November 2019 his employment was terminated due to his conduct and behaviour. The Claimant brought claims of race and sex discrimination, victimisation, wrongful dismissal, bullying and harassment and breach of contract. He also brought claims of sexual harassment and assault alleging that a colleague had made inappropriate comments about his clothing and attempted to grab his crotch. His claims were dismissed by the ET in a judgment dated 14 February 2022 and his former employer sought, and was granted, permission to bring contempt proceedings. The High Court concluded that 12 of the 13 grounds of contempt were proven beyond reasonable doubt and that the Claimant had been deliberately dishonest with the aim of bolstering his ET claims and damaging the reputation of others. The Court of Appeal upheld the contempt of court findings on all bar one ground. On sentencing the Court of Appeal found that the High Court had erred in applying the sentencing guidelines for assault, rather than contempt of court. Nevertheless, the court refused to suspend the sentence, finding that immediate custody remained appropriate in the circumstances. (Ajao v Commerzbank AG)